People keep bringing this up. There was at least a theory about what the early computers would be good at that prior methods wouldn't. Then, they hoped they cou

People keep bringing this up. There was at least a theory about what the early computers would be good at that prior methods wouldn't. Then, they hoped they could improve them with research to do more. Even the ENIAC in the 1940's got used as a large calculator for defense applications: https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-the-eniac-computer-1991601 https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-the-eniac-computer-1991... Similarly, you could say what value ARPAnet would provide, disks, email, telephone, and so on. Whereas, using this argument for quantum computers (here) or blockchains (another thread) makes no sense given they aren't doing anything better than existing techniques. They're actually a step back on most metrics. Q is both a research tool and a commercial waste of money until it proves to be better than a classical computer at some practical job. An example where quantum tech was theoretically better from the start was Quantum Key Exchange with modifications on the line detected. Even that goal was easier to solve without quantum methods, though.